User talk:KyleH
Advice Hi, KyleH, I'm seeking a Wikia Community Team advice. Over the past few days, the wiki's approach on handling a disambiguation has been changed. Whereas before, a disambiguation article is named after the term, and a (disambig) template is placed below. Very simple approach. However, this practice is now being replaced by redirecting said term towards a "term (disambiguation)", even the main term. This mostly comes from a personal distaste of the (disambig) template "wasting screen space", being "ugly", "hassle to maintain". I feel the user is trying too hard to emulate wikipedia, and I'm more inclined to revert back to the initial practice where we use the note, and use "Term" without the brackets as a disambiguation page, regardless. Because the user and I are the only two vocal and active contributors to the wiki, it is very difficult for us to reach a common ground or a compromise, especially since said user has been pushing his views. I might want to add that the former method was not my view, but something I've seen practiced well in other Wikias. I have asked a few other users within the general Wikia community via chat and most do not see a need to redirect "Term" to "Term (disambiguation)", especially when a lone "Term" can still work the same without a redundant (disambiguation) bracket. Some of the arguments we both made can be seen here and here. BLUER一番 12:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC) :Hi Bluerfn! I've taken a look at the discussion, and personally I would recommend against using "(disambiguation)" in the page title. There are a number of reasons for this, but the primary reason that I'm not a fan of putting something like that in the page title is because it makes the page look really bad in search results. Someone is much more likely to click on "Devil Summoner" than "Devil Summoner (disambiguation)" when searching for that term in Google. :Also, whenever possible, you should try to give the user the page that they are most likely looking for first rather than a disambiguation page. This isn't always possible if there are 3 or 4 different terms which could be confused, but if there is one page that someone is almost certainly looking for, present them that first with a note linking to the alternative page. Look at KSFO on Wikipedia for an example of how Wikipedia does this (with the note about the San Francisco airport at the top). --KyleH (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC) ::I don't personally care how the wiki evolves, but I feel this way is far superior, and is not purely based on wikipedia or any particular practice. Nor is it based on wikipedia, because the mission of wikipedia is different. Secondly, if the practice changes, you'll be alone again (and there will be no chance of the other editors pledged to help asap coming back) ...Thirdly: I don't want anything above the content of a page, like disambig suggestions, because if they're there I will be inclined to cut them out of the pages at digitaldevildb.com/wiki/ because the pages there are not supposed to be full of meta information. Finally we've already decided there is so much content here to be documented it can't all be logically put on one single page in the first place, so we're using fully qualified page names with parenthesis already, which is why disambiguation pages should be fully qualified. And quit going behind my back, and quit agreeing to stuff then reneging after I've already put personal time into it. If editors feel like they're wasting their time, they will quit editing (surprise surprise) --Yksehtniycul 23:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC) ::PS: I don't understand KyleH's argument that not putting disambiguation in a disambiguation page title is better for searches. If a disambiguation page doesn't have (disambiguation) in the title then a searcher won't know they're navigating to a disamiguation page. Why would Google serve up a disambiguation page first? And if it was more popular, the searcher should at least know what they're navigating to. I can understand how the "Go" is likely to end up on a disambiguation page, but that's better than ending up on a search results page, and if there is need for disambiguation in the first place, chances are a reader would end up on the wrong page or search page in the first place. People who actually use the wiki like wikipedia learn to put qualifiers in their queries if they want to go to a specific place in one shot. Eg. if I'm looking for a movie I put (film) in my wikipedia query. I have no more to say.--Yksehtniycul 23:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC) :::Thank you for your input, Kyle. :::I rather follow staff recommendation over the approach with the disambiguation; obviously wikia staff are more experienced about the wiki software works. People I've talked with also believe redirecting a term to disambiguation is a ridiculous approach, especially when the main term redirects to a disambiguation, which obviously readers would not be searching for. :::That said, I'm gonna remove all the (disambiguation) tags and place them back to one without a (disambiguation) tag. :::PS: Wikia effort is voluntary. If an editor decides to leave, they can leave any time they want. No surprise there, I've seen it all the time. BLUER一番 04:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC) ::::Just remember you've willfully engendered everyone from involving themselves in this wiki by recklessly stepping on peoples feet. Think about that before undoing everyone's work, and think about being completely alone, and think about dooming the wiki to neglect. Try to make a responsible decision. And also consider the selfishness of going against all others involved. I never intended to get involved in editing this wiki, but I was encouraged to and practically overnight asked to assume sysop status in the hope of restoring some sense of fair play. Editing the wiki was something I found myself doing, not something I imagined myself doing. I'm completely dispassionate one way or the other, I don't need a monkey on my back, but I involved myself out of a sense of rightness. Take a step back, breath and think about the earnest editors you've run off, and think about being alone, and think about what it means for the wiki and the wider community. In general just take more time to think.--Yksehtniycul 16:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC) ^Redirects I think the real prob here (if there is any) is whether or not unqualified pages should be redirects. Or whether they should be the original basis for something with a disclaimer at the top that say "did you mean this or that, or click here for a disambiguation page". Bottom line, if we want to talk about something making a page ugly and wasting screen space, I think that is it. I can't argue either way, except as a minimalist, I don't like that approach, and like I said, it's meta info, so I'd be inclined to get it out of the way of the content somehow at digitaldevildb.com/wiki/. PS: I think I know where we could move disambig disclaimers to if we have to at digitaldevildb.com, but I'd prefer they be avoided except for extreme cases where language fails or something. You're right though, the templates are a hassle and technically impossible to maintain. --Yksehtniycul 23:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)